India has accused the US of creating obstacles for conclusion of the nuclear deal between the two countries.

The article in the newspaper â€œTHE TIMES OF INDIAâ€ â€“ â€œUS officials put a spoke in the wheel, trying to derail the dealâ€ reported that the first meeting of Indo-US contact group on the peaceful atom is scheduled for December. Meanwhile, â€œthe Democrats, who are now in power at present, are advocating for the revision of agreements signed with India by the Republicansâ€.

During his tenure, President George W. Bushâ€™s administration signed an agreement between India and the United States to develop cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. India is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; suppliers of nuclear technologies therefore have a number of limitations to work with this country. Under pressure from the US, an exception was made in the framework of the Nuclear Suppliers Group with regards to India. It opened up the possibility for large-scale cooperation with India in the field of peaceful atom. Now, the Democratic US administration seems to want to change the terms of such cooperation, notes Anton Khlopkov, Director at the Center for Energy and Security and member of the expert group on international security under the Security Council of the Russian Federation:

â€œThat, what is being attempted by the US administration, in the first place, is an attempt to tighten the requirements for India in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. Will it have any effect and does the United States stand to achieve its goals? It is unlikely, because in India, there is criticism in respect of commitments that have already been made. Not to mention of the acceptance of the new ones. I can hardly agree with the opinion that there is a huge perspective in terms of increased commitment of India in the field of non-proliferation. It is obvious that in the US, the industrial lobby is in favor of developing contacts with India in the nuclear field. India is a huge market and certainly not only a piece of cake for the Russian and the French nuclear industry, but also for the USâ€.

India's nuclear weapons program was created by the use of an undeclared research reactor, which was supplied from Canada. India violated obligations under a bilateral agreement with Canada. It also used heavy water of American origin, despite the fact that it had obligations to the United States not to do so for military purposes. This happened in the 60â€™s - beginning of the 70â€™s, but experts, professionals from the USA remember about it. And, this is the reason why, apparently, Washington is trying to tighten the requirements for India under the nuclear deal, considers Anton Khlopkov:

â€œIt should be noted that the Indian side has adopted a very controversial law on liability for damages in the nuclear field. It complicates the entry of foreign nuclear suppliers into the Indian market. Thus, there exist complications in issues associated with the use of peaceful nuclear energy and cooperation with India in this area, which will have to be resolved by both the sidesâ€.

Of course, the situation regarding Indiaâ€™s status of its relations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group has an impact on Russian interests in India. The Russian nuclear industry considers the Indian market as one of the largest in the foreseeable future. There, Russia has fine prospects for increasing the number of nuclear power plants, which are constructed and subsequently operated under the Russian-designed projects. Therefore, Russian experts and nuclear scientists are closely following the interaction of Indian colleagues with other countries.

The fruits of Modiâ€™s diplomacy become evident as Obama becomes the first American President to visit India twice.

A surprise tweet by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi today announced that U.S. President Barack Obama will visit India in January as the Chief Guest for Indiaâ€™s Republic Day ceremonies. The White House quickly confirmed this fact. Republic Day marks the adoption of Indiaâ€™s Constitution in 1950, when the country became a republic. From 1947 to 1950, it was an independent dominion with the British monarch remaining the titular Head of State, as in Canada and Australia. Obama will be the first U.S. President to attend the celebrations as the chief guest.

Obamaâ€™s visit to India in January will also mark the first time a sitting U.S. president has visited India twice during his presidency. Although President Obama has not been very India-oriented (in sharp contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush), this may have been due more to other issues taking up his time rather than any deliberate strategic intention on his part. Obamaâ€™s visit to India is a testimony that Prime Minister Modiâ€™s hyperactive international diplomacy has started to pay off, putting an end to some speculation that Modiâ€™s globe-trotting was a waste of time. While the issue of whether or not this diplomacy yields tangible results is another matter, Modi has started to succeed in one of diplomacyâ€™s most important purposes: the task of advertising oneâ€™s nation and reminding the world of its importance. This is important if countries around the world are to consider investing in India or its strategic interests. This includes a major breakthrough last week with the U.S. on a dispute over food subsidies that had previously risked derailing a new deal at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
As Modiâ€™s travels in the past few weeks have shown, he gets along well with world leaders and is very popular with them, which is not only inherently good, but good for Modiâ€™s diplomatic initiatives. Scroll.in has a great photo collection of Modi in Myanmar and Australia, where he attended the ASEAN and G20 summits. The photos include Modi interacting cheerfully with world leaders, including President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in addition to bonding with a koala. More substantively, India inked several deals with Myanmar and Australia and got the G20 to take an official stance on black money. Modiâ€™s visit to Australia was the first time an Indian leader visited the country in 28 years and led to the signing of a security pact and a one-year timeline to sign a free trade agreement.
Perhaps the most interesting new diplomatic initiative of the Indian government was its reaching out to Pacific Island nations it had previously not taken notice of. Modi met the leaders of these nations on the island of Fiji, which he visited after he left Australia. The present Indian government has been cultivating its diaspora in order to strengthen its strategic ties with nations inhabited by non-resident Indians. Fiji, in particular, is important because of its size, its large Indian community, and its geographic location. If it moves closer to India, this would strengthen Indiaâ€™s strategic position in the Pacific.

Obamaâ€™s visit to India and Indiaâ€™s diplomatic successes show that India is getting serious about diplomacy, in which competence is the prerequisite for tangibles. Obamaâ€™s visit demonstrates that the U.S. and India are willing to move forward strategically and economically despite the disappointing lack of progress over the past few years. Diplomatically, the next important summit to watch is the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) next week in Kathmandu, Nepal. The lessons of ASEAN and Chinaâ€™s growth point to an argument for more South Asian economic integration and manufacturing. In other words, SAARC has to move in the direction of ASEAN, a promise that it has so far failed to live up to. For SAARC to have a chance at working, Modi, and Modi alone needs to push hard to make it relevant so that he can fulfill his dream of South Asian integration. India is key to the success of SAARC because, according to former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, India is â€œemerging as a kind of economic engine for the entire region. To make SAARC work, India has to take the lead, because it shares borders with the most member countries.â€

For SAARC to have a chance at working, Modi, and Modi alone needs to push hard to make it relevant so that he can fulfill his dream of South Asian integration. India is key to the success of SAARC because, according to former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, India is â€œemerging as a kind of economic engine for the entire region. To make SAARC work, India has to take the lead, because it shares borders with the most member countries.â€

EXCERPTS
Against this background, South Asia should take advantage from China's desire to join SAARC. There has been widespread feelings in the region that SAARC has not been able to move faster and accomplish its goal of meaningful regional cooperation for which it was created 26 years ago. This is mainly attributed to the lack of resources as most SAARC countries are poor. Moreover, the role of India, which is the biggest and most powerful member of the SAARC, may be uneasy from the effectiveness of the SAARC. India's policy on SAARC is to keep the region alive but weak and fragile.

With China's entry as a full-fledged member, the SAARC would be world's largest regional body with more resources and capability in tackling the region's problems and contributing to the development of this area. China's entry into SAARC would add one more dimension. So far, SAARC has been India centric and New Delhi has used its influence, power and clout to reduce SAARC activities to meetings and discussions. But China is a bigger and more powerful in terms of size, population, economic and military might which may serve as a perfect countervailing force in the SAARC so that one country's hegemony would come to an end and SAARC would be more meaningful, functioning and vibrant.

China's entry into the SAARC as a full-fledged member is necessary not for China's interest but for the benefit of South Asian countries mainly smaller and weaker ones like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Afghanistan. There are some other countries which have openly backed China's entry into SAARC. Pakistan has wholeheartedly supported this move. The Maldives and Sri Lanka are also positive. There has been widespread support in the popular level in South Asia for brining China into SAARC forum as a member. Bangladesh, too, may not oppose the proposal despite Prime Minister's Seikh Hasina's pro-India tilt. Since Bhutan is India's tutelage, New Delhi may use Thimpu card in keeping Beijing away although India would not come up openly against China. The public opinion in Nepal is in China's favour because of Beijing's good neighborly attitude and friendly cooperation. Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai had publicly spoken the need for bringing China into SAARC and has vowed to create Nepal as a meaningful bridge between China and India. However, Prime Minister Bhattarai's silence over this matter in Maldives during the 17th SAARC summit is conspicuous. Since he is the second head of the government in South Asia to raise the issue of bringing China into SAARC, he should have raised this issue in Maldives.

EXCERPTS
Against this background, South Asia should take advantage from China's desire to join SAARC. There has been widespread feelings in the region that SAARC has not been able to move faster and accomplish its goal of meaningful regional cooperation for which it was created 26 years ago. This is mainly attributed to the lack of resources as most SAARC countries are poor. Moreover, the role of India, which is the biggest and most powerful member of the SAARC, may be uneasy from the effectiveness of the SAARC. India's policy on SAARC is to keep the region alive but weak and fragile.

With China's entry as a full-fledged member, the SAARC would be world's largest regional body with more resources and capability in tackling the region's problems and contributing to the development of this area. China's entry into SAARC would add one more dimension. So far, SAARC has been India centric and New Delhi has used its influence, power and clout to reduce SAARC activities to meetings and discussions. But China is a bigger and more powerful in terms of size, population, economic and military might which may serve as a perfect countervailing force in the SAARC so that one country's hegemony would come to an end and SAARC would be more meaningful, functioning and vibrant.

Click to expand...

Allowing China into SAARC like allowing Russia into NATO aka no meaning of NATO at all

India is sole power in SAARC and will(like US in NATO),better China conc. on SCS&ASEAN

Entirely different. NATO a military bloc SAARC is an economic and political forum. Even Russia once aspired to join EU.

China borders most of SAARC incl. Afghanistan which India doesn't. And the total of Chinese trade volume with SAARC members exceeds that of India with other members.

On connectivity Chinese railway under construction is heading towards Kathmandu, via Xigaze. A link to Bangladesh by expressway is being built through Myanmar.

Now that bilateral ties r already buoyant such as China-SL FTA and Chinese being #1 tourist origin for the Maldives, a formal membership will expedite multilateral coordination for the regional well-being.

Entirely different. NATO a military bloc SAARC is an economic and political forum. Even Russia once aspired to join EU.

China borders most of SAARC incl. Afghanistan which India doesn't. And the total of Chinese trade volume with SAARC members exceeds that of India with other members.

On connectivity Chinese railway under construction is heading towards Kathmandu, via Xigaze. A link to Bangladesh by expressway is being built through Myanmar.

Now that bilateral ties r already buoyant such as China-SL FTA and Chinese being #1 tourist origin for the Maldives, a formal membership will expedite multilateral coordination for the regional well-being.

Click to expand...

Countries are not run like corporates, they have to take other factors except trade into account. Using your logic, the US still has a better chance of joining SAARC than China.

Entirely different. NATO a military bloc SAARC is an economic and political forum. Even Russia once aspired to join EU.

China borders most of SAARC incl. Afghanistan which India doesn't. And the total of Chinese trade volume with SAARC members exceeds that of India with other members.

On connectivity Chinese railway under construction is heading towards Kathmandu, via Xigaze. A link to Bangladesh by expressway is being built through Myanmar.

Now that bilateral ties r already buoyant such as China-SL FTA and Chinese being #1 tourist origin for the Maldives, a formal membership will expedite multilateral coordination for the regional well-being.

Click to expand...

I see more utility in dissolving SAARC. If it does not work, better to let it go.

However there is a lot of merit in building railroads and highways connecting different regions. I am all for it.

Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation BIMSTEC is an international organisation involving a group of countries in South Asia and South East Asia. These are: Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bhutan and Nepal.Minus islamic countries Pork!satan,Maldives&Afg and new entries Thai&Mayanmar

Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation BIMSTEC is an international organisation involving a group of countries in South Asia and South East Asia. These are: Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bhutan and Nepal.Minus islamic countries Pork!satan,Maldives&Afg and new entries Thai&Mayanmar

What, Replacement? Do u imply India has left SAARC aground and abandoned? Without sufficient money u lack the lubricant to get the new machine BIMSTEC to work! Just to give u a hint, Thai military junta has approved the railway linking to China through Laos, and Myanmar Parliament has rejected the amendment to allow Lady Aung Sang to run for presidential election for her sons being British nationals. Pulling them onto your bandwagon doesn't help! They're still in the pockets of our beloved Central Kingdom.

Foolish Chinese thinks they can check mate India by using string of pearls without knowledge of India's geography&Strength in India's ocean
But now Ind+US+Aus+Jpn+Asean made a Pivot asia around China

Click to expand...

Chinese are not foolish. They have a plan. The plan has several deficiencies but they think their plan will work.

India's planning has ALWAYS BEEN DEFENSIVE. So India cannot take on China on a global scale or even in IOC region. There is a difference in planning and in resources.

China thinks USA is in its pocket. This is China's biggest mistake. The fact is that Americans are getting very nervous at Chinese aggressive behaviour. China is challenging the Asian order that USA has built so painstakingly since second world war.

Chinese are not foolish. They have a plan. The plan has several deficiencies but they think their plan will work.

India's planning has ALWAYS BEEN DEFENSIVE. So India cannot take on China on a global scale or even in IOC region. There is a difference in planning and in resources.

China thinks USA is in its pocket. This is China's biggest mistake. The fact is that Americans are getting very nervous at Chinese aggressive behaviour. China is challenging the Asian order that USA has built so painstakingly since second world war.

Click to expand...

I hope u are not mistaken that US is single entity ,US with almost all EU+Ocean countries clubbed as WEST.I agree completely China is aggressive and it want's to change the world order,they only change order by force here comes the 'pivot asia'.War is necessary either covert/direct or both just grab op: and enjoy the show

As far as India,India is a poor nation and we are satisfied with our borders mostly.So obviously we are defensive mode.I know India is mature enough to not to enter direct war instead support West in covert war.

Basically the gist is that nuclear deal with US may not happen. IS IT A BIG PROBLEM? Not really.

It is clear to India's planners that an overt acceptance of India's nuclear status will not come anytime soon. This has ALREADY BEEN FACTORED in planning.

The USA has its own goals and its own worldview. India's and USA's objectives may not meet in every area. They do not need to meet even. India can live with a "friendly" USA, without getting in bed with USA.